5 ms·

Not a math major, but this paper is claiming that the RH is false. Is the claim (proof) valid ?

gus_massa 4y ago
Math major here, but it's not my area. so I have to guess Note that it's not a "per review paper", it's just a PFD shared somewhere, a "preprint" if you like a formal word. It looks short (4 pages) and looks quite readable, so I guess that if you wait a week or two it will be a major new IF true. My guess is it's false. It looks like the author made a similar claim two years ago and it's now fixing some details. With a loooooooooooooooooooong proof that is possible because only the author can understood it good enough to fix it, but with a proof that is so short a minor error would have been fixed soon.
- pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
  It looks like the author made the opposite claim three years ago: http://math.ahu.edu.cn/_upload/article/files/85/03/f191ded54991a45d0dde5f53576e/d0cea4af-90b4-4e99-b8ce-47ffb111328f.pdf http://math.ahu.edu.cn/_upload/article/files/85/03/f191ded54...
  - gus_massa 4y ago
    I'm not going to blame anyone because I make this all the time. Sometimes the poof that something is true or false are very similar. In this case the difference is if some value is 1/2 or 3/4. Anyway, my coworkers find the error before we publish it.
  - kklisura 4y ago
    Someone reviewed that specific paper here [1]. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220128195023/https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/10/some-fun-with-proof-of-riemann.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220128195023/https://motls.blo...
    - Quant10 4y ago
      This was a review of the author's earlier paper of 2018, in which they were actually claiming a proof of the RH. On their arXiv page: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546 https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546, the author states that "though all my previous proposed (dis)proofs were flawed, i think the flaws pointed me towards the right direction..."
- oblvious-earth 4y ago
  This is actually the 19th version of the paper the author has published in just over 2 years: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546 https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546 Being such a short paper if people in this field thought it was close to actually disproving the Riemann Hypothesis likely another mathematician could takes the proofs concept, fix it, publish it, and have it peer reviewed to snipe the claim of disproving the Riemann Hypothesis.
  - gus_massa 4y ago
    Fully agree. I guess there is still some honor and the other person would invite the original author as an author of the fixed paper, but it looks very snipable.
    - Quant10 4y ago
      If there are no significant improvements to the paper by the "second" author, such acts of "sniping" might be treated by the math community as academic theft, and the second author might not get any credit at all. If anything, their reputation might be seriously damaged. This is exactly what happened with Perelman's proof of the Poincare conjecture: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/08/28/manifold-destiny https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/08/28/manifold-desti...
      - oblvious-earth 4y ago
        Perelman and all the surrounding controversy is the most extreme examples in modern times and I feel the mathematical community has got much more accepting of group contributions in the last 2 decades. But yes, if the proof is only missing easy plug-able gaps then likely a mathematician would reach out to the author so they could co-author the paper. Anything else would be rude. I was more meaning in the case where the proof has some insight but not apply it in a way that actually disproves the Riemann Hypothesis.
mjreacher 4y ago
No and this post will hopefully be flagged soon. A quick Google search of the author would also show that they have published several similar proofs before [0] which were also wrong. [0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546 https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546
- Quant10 4y ago
  If anyone is going to solve the RH, it would be after numerous failed attempts.
  - gus_massa 4y ago
    Most people wait until they are almost sure that the proof is correct before publishing it, with a few informal reviews of coworkers. It's strange that he posted so many versions. Is this [v19] version the final correct one or he is going to post a fix in a few weeks?
    - Quant10 4y ago
      I wouldn't know. But from the author's arXiv statement [1] that ..though all of my previous (dis)proofs were flawed, i think the flaws pointed me towards the right direction..." it seems they are quite confident in the current version. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546 https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546
      - gus_massa 4y ago
        I've read that, but looking at the previous history I'd wait a month before reading it in case the author finds yet another error. (Unless you are a specialist in the subject.)
        Quant10 4y ago
        I'm a physics major, unfortunately. But i have taken some basic courses in number theory & analysis. As far as i can tell, the argument looks interesting (can't find any serious fault in it). However, i can't say anything conclusive. Maybe someone else will.

Math major here, but it's not my area. so I have to guess Note that it's not a "per review paper", it's just a PFD shared somewhere, a "preprint" if you like a formal word. It looks short (4 pages) and looks quite readable, so I guess that if you wait a week or two it will be a major new IF true. My guess is it's false. It looks like the author made a similar claim two years ago and it's now fixing some details. With a loooooooooooooooooooong proof that is possible because only the author can understood it good enough to fix it, but with a proof that is so short a minor error would have been fixed soon.

pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
It looks like the author made the opposite claim three years ago: http://math.ahu.edu.cn/_upload/article/files/85/03/f191ded54991a45d0dde5f53576e/d0cea4af-90b4-4e99-b8ce-47ffb111328f.pdf http://math.ahu.edu.cn/_upload/article/files/85/03/f191ded54...
- gus_massa 4y ago
  I'm not going to blame anyone because I make this all the time. Sometimes the poof that something is true or false are very similar. In this case the difference is if some value is 1/2 or 3/4. Anyway, my coworkers find the error before we publish it.
- kklisura 4y ago
  Someone reviewed that specific paper here [1]. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220128195023/https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/10/some-fun-with-proof-of-riemann.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220128195023/https://motls.blo...
  - Quant10 4y ago
    This was a review of the author's earlier paper of 2018, in which they were actually claiming a proof of the RH. On their arXiv page: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546 https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546, the author states that "though all my previous proposed (dis)proofs were flawed, i think the flaws pointed me towards the right direction..."
oblvious-earth 4y ago
This is actually the 19th version of the paper the author has published in just over 2 years: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546 https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546 Being such a short paper if people in this field thought it was close to actually disproving the Riemann Hypothesis likely another mathematician could takes the proofs concept, fix it, publish it, and have it peer reviewed to snipe the claim of disproving the Riemann Hypothesis.
- gus_massa 4y ago
  Fully agree. I guess there is still some honor and the other person would invite the original author as an author of the fixed paper, but it looks very snipable.
  - Quant10 4y ago
    If there are no significant improvements to the paper by the "second" author, such acts of "sniping" might be treated by the math community as academic theft, and the second author might not get any credit at all. If anything, their reputation might be seriously damaged. This is exactly what happened with Perelman's proof of the Poincare conjecture: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/08/28/manifold-destiny https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/08/28/manifold-desti...
    - oblvious-earth 4y ago
      Perelman and all the surrounding controversy is the most extreme examples in modern times and I feel the mathematical community has got much more accepting of group contributions in the last 2 decades. But yes, if the proof is only missing easy plug-able gaps then likely a mathematician would reach out to the author so they could co-author the paper. Anything else would be rude. I was more meaning in the case where the proof has some insight but not apply it in a way that actually disproves the Riemann Hypothesis.

mjreacher 4y ago

No and this post will hopefully be flagged soon. A quick Google search of the author would also show that they have published several similar proofs before [0] which were also wrong. [0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546 https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546

Quant10 4y ago
If anyone is going to solve the RH, it would be after numerous failed attempts.
- gus_massa 4y ago
  Most people wait until they are almost sure that the proof is correct before publishing it, with a few informal reviews of coworkers. It's strange that he posted so many versions. Is this [v19] version the final correct one or he is going to post a fix in a few weeks?
  - Quant10 4y ago
    I wouldn't know. But from the author's arXiv statement [1] that ..though all of my previous (dis)proofs were flawed, i think the flaws pointed me towards the right direction..." it seems they are quite confident in the current version. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546 https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546
    - gus_massa 4y ago
      I've read that, but looking at the previous history I'd wait a month before reading it in case the author finds yet another error. (Unless you are a specialist in the subject.)
      - Quant10 4y ago
        I'm a physics major, unfortunately. But i have taken some basic courses in number theory & analysis. As far as i can tell, the argument looks interesting (can't find any serious fault in it). However, i can't say anything conclusive. Maybe someone else will.